1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This is an application for clarification of our Order dated 28-3-1974. The petitioner has admitted that no Second Review Application lies. This application has arisen in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioner filed a complaint under sections 380, 445, 448 and 451, P. P. C which was heard by the Additional District Magistrate, Rawalpindi, who acquitted the accused.The learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court dismissed revision Petition.
3. The allegation of the petitioner was that the accused on 30-4-63 had trespassed into the Baithak of House No. 672-73/E, situate in New Gate, Peshawar City and committed theft of the complainant's articles lying therein. The case of the defence that the house had beer transferred to the complainant by the Settlement Department and the complainant had, in turn, agreed to sell the same to the accused under a written agreement dated 8-11-1960. He further pleaded that the accused had taken possession of the entire house including the Baithak in pursuance of the said agreement. In this connection, a sum of Rs. 6,000 was paid to the petitioner on 8-11-1960. This position was accepted by the petitioner himself in his statement before a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 116 of 1962 by which the petitioner compromised a complaint filed by him. In this compromise he admitted that the petitioner had parted with the possession of the entire house including the disputed Baithak. The matter was then taken in Petition for Special Leave No. 282 of 1971 and this Court came to the conclusion that the view of the lower Courts that the complaint was filed to exercise pressure tactics is correct. No merits were found in this petition and it was dismissed on 9-3-1973.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Review Petition No. 4 of 1973 which was dismissed on 28-3-1974. All the facts were considered by the Court in the said Review Petition, and it was held that the judgment dated 9-3-1973 of this Court was correct and there was no error apparent on the face of the record, and no ground to interfere. The petitioner now seeks clarification of the said Order.
5. We have gone through the Order dismissing the Review Petition dated 28-3-1974. It appears to us that there is no ambiguity in the said Order and it does not require any clarification. The question that the petitioner has compromised the matter with the accused was admitted by him, and it was found to be correct. It was further stated in the said Order that it was not the only ground on which the petition was dismissed, but other points were also considered, and on merits it was found that the petitioner, had no case for granting him special leave. It was found in the Order passed in Review that there was no error apparent on the face of the record which could lead us to review the order dated 9-3-1973. In this view of the matter, we do not consider any merits in this application. The petition is dismissed.